A Federal High Court in Abuja, on
Friday, turned down request by the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, to order
the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, to produce their leader,
Nnamdi Kanu.

In a ruling that was delivered by
Justice Binta Nyako, the court dismissed an application that was filed by a
team of lawyers representing the IPOB leader, which prayed the court to compel
Buratai to produce their client, either dead or alive.

The IPOB lawyers, led by Ifeanyi
Ejiofor, told the court that they have not seen or heard from their client
since September 14, 2017, when the Nigerian Army invaded his house, “on a
murderous raid, where life and mortar bullets were fired on unarmed and
defenceless populace, leaving 28 persons dead and abducting many.”

Pursuant to section 40 of the
Federal High Court Act, F12, LFN 2005 and section 6(6) (1) (4) of the 1999
constitution, as amended, Kanu’s lawyers applied for, “an order of Habeas
Corpus ad subjiciendum, commanding the Respondent (Buratai), to produce the
Applicant in Court.”

In a counter-affidavit filed in
opposition to the suit, Buratai told the court that Kanu was never in custody
of the Nigerian Army.

The army chief maintained that
contrary to claims in the suit, soldiers who were deployed to the South-East
for ‘Operation Python Dance II, did not have any contact whatsoever with Kanu
on September 12 or 14, or anytime thereafter as alleged.

The Chief of Army Staff told the
court that the Nigerian Army did not at any time arrest or took Kanu into
custody within the period the military operation lasted, even as he denied
allegation that soldiers invaded the IPOB leader’s house in Afara-Ukwu Ibeku,
Umuahia, Abia State.

A colonel attached to the Chief
of Army Staff’s office in the Army Headquarters, Abuja, Col. A.A Yusuf, who
deposed to the counter-affidavit on behalf of Buratai, said the alleged
invasion of Kanu’s house was totally false.

In her ruling, Justice Nyako held
that Ejiofor failed to convince the court that Kanu was seen with soldiers at
any time.

She pointed out that, “the
doctrine of last seen,” which the applicant relied upon, even though applicable
in murder cases, has no statutory backing.

The Judge noted that Kanu was
listed in the suit as the main applicant.

According to the judge, she was
surprised that someone that was said to be missing was the one seeking reliefs
from the court, insisting that the lawyers ought to have rather commenced the
action “in the name of the applicant.”

Nyako said affidavits Ejiofor
presented before the court contained criminal allegations against the Nigerian
Army that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

“Has the applicant placed enough
evidence to show that the respondent was the last to see the applicant? Was
there any evidence that he was last seen with even one soldier?

“The onus of proof will not shift
from the applicant to the respondent except the applicant is able to prove that
he was last seen by the respondent. This they have failed to do.

“This application fails and it is
hereby dismissed. Be ready for your case,” the Judge held.

When Ejiofor demanded to know
from the court what the next line of action would be in respect of Kanu’s
pending trial, since his whereabouts has remained unknown.

Justice Nyako explained, “As far
as I am concerned, the applicant is on bail. Was he not released on bail based
on an undertaking by sureties?

“The sureties guaranteed to
produce the applicant in court for his trial, so three of them should produce
him.

“They made an undertaking and
deposed to the fact that they will produce him to stand trial.

“If there is any reason they
cannot produce him, they should tell me on that date.”